Parking breaks - Page 3

Supervisors and angry citizens fail to deter the SFMTA from managing on-street parking

|
(9)
SF EXAMINER PHOTO BY MIKE KOOZMIN

But he noted that many of his constituents can't afford to own a car and they need SFMTA to actively promote other transportation options: "We do need to find a way to do everything and balance this out."

FRUSTRATION WITH SFMTA

No neighborhood epitomizes the tricky balancing act on parking polices more than the northeast Mission, with its tight mix of residential and production, distribution, and repair businesses in a neighborhood where growing parking demand will be exacerbated by plans to convert the parking lot at 17th and Folsom streets into a park.

That was where the anger at the SFMTA's approach to parking reached a fever pitch last year, spawning opposition groups such as the Northeast Mission Coalition. Angela Sinicropi, who heads that group, is calling for new preferential parking permits for local residents and the PDR businesses in the area.

"It's not a preference or a choice. Vehicles are a necessary part of these businesses," said Sinicropi, who owns a photography business called Syntax Studio. "We need long-term, all-day parking."

She said her members appreciate SFMTA staff working with residents, but they're still frustrated by the agency's reliance on parking meters as the main parking management tool. Others simply slammed the SFMTA — which was set up as an independent agency that would be somewhat immune from political pressures — as out-of-control.

"The problem with the MTA is their lack of transparency and accountability," Rob Francis said.

"MTA has lost its way. They shouldn't be focused on parking. They should focus on transit," said Potrero Hill resident Jim Wilkins. "As taxpayers, we pay for the streets. We pay to maintain those streets. So we should be given priority on those streets."

"Keep things as they are and be respectful of taxpayers," said Walter Bass, a Potrero Hill property owner, blaming the "bike people" for skewing the agency's priorities. "SFMTA has lost the privilege to manage parking in San Francisco."

Reiskin sat in the front row listening to angry tirades against him and his agency for more than an hour, yet he stuck by his position that managing parking is far from a privilege — it is a difficult duty and one he doesn't intend to shirk, even as he tries to heed the public's concerns.

In the end, the supervisors didn't really chasten the SFMTA, as its critics had hoped for.

Farrell seemed content to declare, "There are no other plans to expand parking meters throughout San Francisco," after Reiskin said he's not planning to go beyond the five parking management areas now being created.

"I hope MTA was listening to the public comments and concerns," Cohen offered, hoping the hearing will somehow alleviate the shitstorm from some of her car-driving constituents.

And Campos closed with perhaps the only real conclusion that could be drawn from this hearing: "This won't be the last time we'll be talking about this issue."

Comments

Progressive government is to do whatever it wants in spite of the citizens involvement.

Posted by Matlock on May. 08, 2013 @ 11:17 pm

Citizen involvement in the form of Prop E a few years back merged dpt and muni to create the politically independent sfmta so that they could make the hard choices that need to be made to accommodate a future population of 900,000.

Posted by Guest @jwinstonsf on May. 09, 2013 @ 5:34 am

you said it. so they can make the hard choices that need to be made. And that's the fact, except that they made the decision and that politics took over anyway. Time to stick to it, run it as a pilot, see what the market rate would be, and if all else fails you can always return to the status quo. EXCEPT you will never know if you dont ever try. People are afraid of change, they dont look at the whole picture, and like anyone, who would want to pay if they used to get it free. Well time to grow up people! We cant all drive all the same time, else no one will get anywhere.

People dont live here to live in a parking lot, and it simply is inefficient to fill our world with cars... sitting...

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2013 @ 11:08 pm

Hilarious. This is SF.

Posted by Matlock on May. 10, 2013 @ 5:42 pm

Why does "manage traffic" always mean "take from the motorist and give to SFBC?" Why does "manage" mean eliminate parking without mitigation plans for alternative parking locations? Why does "manage" mean putting bike lanes onto the busiest streets, thus creating new dangers? Why does "manage" mean forced increases in the cost of living in the City? Why does "manage" mean that cyclists never have to pay for anything, including the revenue of which their cycling deprives Muni of millions? It all sounds like Pogrom to me.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

Watch the hyperbole or you'll be sewing messenger bags in Pelican Bay! I've been biking in SF for 13 years and these changes have very little effect on my cost of living. In addition, how do you define "never have to pay for anything?" There's a Bridge and a New Bore of the Caldecott that I would like to sell my tax dollar share of - are you buying?

Posted by SFBayBiker on May. 09, 2013 @ 3:33 pm

"This was the moment these indignant motorists had been waiting for."

- Steve Jones.

"The soccer project has been repeatedly approved by city agencies despite strong opposition from some neighbors and environmentalists, who say it conflicts with a Local Coastal Plan that calls for it to be a “naturalistic” setting. "

- Steve Jones

Posted by Matlock on May. 10, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

"I look forward to you saying, 'I quit, you win, no more parking meters,'" Cohen said to Reiskin, throwing red meat to the seething crowd, which erupted into loud, raucous, sustained applause and shouts of appreciation at the comment."

That incident was a psychological ploy between two of the the Israelis running San Francisco.

Everyone hates Reiskin so what does he care if Cohen attacks him? They will kiss and make up at the synagogue later.

Cohen gets loads of positive publicity for saying what she did that will help her when re-election time comes around.

Reiskin will go ahead and do what they all do. Maximize profit which in turn maximizes human suffering.

I bet he is salivating at the prospect right now.

Posted by guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 8:24 am

SFMTA sucks on a good day. Time to put it in the hands of the Stupidvisers who are elected by the people.

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2013 @ 9:42 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.